Welcome all – I’ve been considering how best to proceed after it seemed there was indeed some interest:

Some initial thoughts

I have come to learn that in so many situations it is of the utmost importance to be aware of the underlying context. The question then is, how do you convey context accruing from thousands of years’ pre-colonial history, hundreds of years’ colonialism and apartheid, and a few decades’ relative freedom?

I think it’s fair to say that I’m neither the right nor the most qualified one to try and tell this history faithfully – it’s the life work of many scholars. Indeed the same is true for most other South Africans. At the same time we all know it to varying degrees, and so give form to an amorphous contextual zeitgeist – unifying in some cases ("The People Shall Govern!") and less so in others ("The Land Shall Be Shared Among Those Who Work It!").

Ultimately, for better or for worse, the findings of the historians often matter less than one would expect and we find ourselves engaging on the basis of this proxy history – the people’s history. You may have some similar experience (alternative facts?).

I wanted to start with this perception/truth duality issue because, as alluded to earlier, it is at the heart of so many debates. Practically speaking, I will try my best to be objective where possible – unfortunately when we start talking ethics and morals there isn’t really a universally accepted truth to it and so we will just have to do our best.

Luckily, there is in this particular case a pretty good framework that allows us to do our best: the Constitution is my country’s founding document and one against which all things must be measured. It also happens to provide a structure that avails itself to telling the story and so I’d like to delve into it somewhat.

The Constitution

The 1996 Constitution is an aspirational document. It paints a picture of a South Africa that I would like to think most citizens can agree is one to strive towards. It is (to some extent) the ideological child of a much earlier document – the 1955 Freedom Charter.

The Freedom Charter has some slightly snappier but less legally and practically constructed precepts and so I’ll reproduce them here to give an idea of what we’re dealing with (hint: you’ve already seen two):

1. The People Shall Govern!

2. All National Groups Shall Have Equal Rights!

3. The People Shall Share In The Country's Wealth!

4. The Land Shall Be Shared Among Those Who Work It!

5. All Shall Be Equal Before The Law!

6. All Shall Enjoy Equal Human Rights!

7. There Shall Be Work And Security!

8. The Doors Of Learning And Of Culture Shall Be Opened!

9. There Shall Be Houses, Security And Comfort!

10. There Shall Be Peace And Friendship!

It would perhaps not be surprising that arguably none of these have been achieved 23 years into democracy – there has been progress but the job is not yet done. This is where those issues I spoke about in Pubski come into play.

The way forward

I wasn’t really sure how to get started but I think this lays at least a small foundation. Notwithstanding what I said earlier, it will probably be useful to try and get a basic history and “dramatis personae” going to bring the most important background across. Otherwise I think a “just in time” approach to contextual stuff will probably be better once it becomes more nitty-gritty.

In reality

Some of you may be aware that, over and above these more philosophical debates, South Africa is currently going through a spot of politically induced turmoil. Tomorrow will see large scale demonstrations against the President across the country (unless the police commissioner has his way). I’m no stranger to the picket lines so I'll be out there.

I've long argued that photography is the skill of turning perspective into art. Non-fiction is no different: Barbara Tuchman's prose is colored by the fact that she was a little girl onboard one of the pursuit ships of the Goeben and Breslau. Will Durant wrote the way he did because as a philosopher, he viewed history as one long expression of philosophy. Michael Lewis clearly felt he was a normal street kid who stumbled into way too much power at Lehman Brothers in Liar's Poker; his schtick ever since has been man-on-the-street "you won't believe this shit" prose and it works wonders.

I don't know who you are as a person, but I know that if you write from the perspective of what's important to you it will be a lot more interesting, a lot more engaging and a lot more retentive. I've known a few South Africans and none of them much like talking about home. This makes you unique in my experience. Tell me what you want me to know and it'll be a damn sight more interesting than if you guess what a sociology professor would want me to know.

The primary reason why I wanted to do this was to try and capture my thoughts somewhere where it can have some value-add, and I think hubski is the right kind of space for that.

Underneath that is however the fact that I've been thinking a lot lately. I went through what you might call a "life changing" experience last year that really shifted my perspective on a lot of things.

South Africa is my home. I don't want to live anywhere else. But it's become clear to me that we can't just rest on our laurels and expect things to get better organically. At the very least it's necessary to start to define what kind of a future is the one I want for myself and those around me. This definition in turn requires that I grapple with the big issues so that I can have a clarity of purpose in what I do. 50% theoretical framework, 50% moral conviction.

The big question that umbrellas over all the others is one of identity and belonging. How do define myself and what I stand for in a country with mega baggage and a suspect future?

So no, it won't be a sociology lecture, not least because I'm an engineer but also because of the perception thing I spoke about - I can only work with what I've got and what I get from others (this touches a bit on the subsequent responsibility to hear what others have to say).

Lastly, being an engineer, this is really my first foray into 1st personal writing so you may need to be gentle in that respect!

Definitely more philosophical. It was constituted following a national canvassing of demands from the townships and homelands. So it was like the consolidated voice of a large percentage of the oppressed.

At the time, non-whites had incredibly limited political representation and so it was a major act of defiance to demand the things set out there. In fact the huge meeting where it was proclaimed was broken up by the police on the second day. A few years later the organisations involved would be banned.

Ever since it served as the foundation of the struggle (for most) in the sense that it showed what was required, culminating on its influence on the Constitution.

The 1996 Constitution is an aspirational document. It paints a picture of a South Africa that I would like to think most citizens can agree is one to strive towards.

The United States Declaration of Independence famously declares the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I think my fellow citizens would unquestioningly agree with this at the most basic level. Things start to get muddled when there are competing interests in the liberties various citizens enjoy.

So my question to you is how hard does it seem for you and citizens around you to agree on that picture of South Africa? In the US it can get lost behind politics and anger and self righteousness, but I'm hopeful that it can be better.

Certainly in the general sense there is agreement (with some caveats that I'll get into now-now). Within the Constitution the main source of these ideals is in the bill of rights (SS 7-39). The rest deals with more procedural stuff relating to how government will function etc. I believe the US constitution has a similar setup.

There is broad agreement largely because of the relatively consultative process which produced it - during the transitional period (~90s) there was engagement between the various political groupings and the old regime culminating in an interim constitution that paved the way for a democratically constructed one after the elections.

As such, it reflects the politics of the day - in South Africa the Overton window lies very much to the left, at least in the talk-space.

The devil is in the details however. There are two main issues/debates as far as I have eyes to see:

The first is the idea that the Constitution did not go far enough in pushing for revolutionary change. There is a view that is gaining more traction than it used to have that the 1994 dispensation represents a suspension of the revolution. I think there is perhaps something to this, although I cannot throw my weight behind it entirely. S 25 for instance guarantees the right to property and prohibits expropriation without compensation. The question is then how this squares with the process (which is mandated in the same section) of righting our history of marginalisation and dispossession. In essence, who should own the land and how to shift? I won't get into the specifics here but I hope it illustrates this type of clash.

The second issue is the question of how to actually do the practical legwork in trying to guarantee the rights. This is where the debate more commonly lies. For instance when people protest and demand access to sanitation, they can rest assured that the Constitution guarantees the right to adequate housing, with sanitation almost assuredly being a necessary condition for such.

There is yet much to be said here but hopefully that goes some way to answering your question!